Photo of Michael J. Donnelly

Michael J. Donnelly

Subscribe to Michael J. Donnelly's Posts
Contact:Read more about Michael J. Donnelly

In March of this year, we told you that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in ACA Int’l. v. FCC, wherein the court set aside two FCC interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. Specifically, the court ruled that the FCC’s interpretation as to what constitutes an autodialer under the TCPA was unreasonably expansive, and that the FCC’s treatment of reassigned numbers was also overly broad.

On May 22, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, issued a decision further restricting the scope of the TCPA. By way of reminder, the Congress passed the TCPA in 1991 in an effort to curb robo calls.  The case involved calls made by a debt collector to a former Comcast customer.  She sued, claiming that the calls were impermissible under the TCPA.  An essential aspect of the TCPA claim at issue was that the call must be made through the use of an “automatic telephone dialing system”, or ATDS, as defined in the statute.
Continue Reading District Court Gives Narrow, Reasonable Scope to TCPA

Yesterday the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit weighed in on the consumer class action standing issue.  The court found that Barnes & Noble customers have standing to pursue a class action concerning the hacking of the retailer’s PIN pads.  In doing so, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court ruling dismissing the complaint for failure to adequately plead damages.  The Court of Appeals determined that the time value of money which had been removed from plaintiffs’ accounts (even though it was ultimately returned), the costs of credit monitoring, and the time invested to create new accounts all were sufficient to provide standing.
Continue Reading The Seventh Circuit Weighs In On Standing

In August, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit revived a class action lawsuit, holding that the threat of harm from a data breach is enough to satisfy the “injury in fact” standing requirement. Attias v. Carefirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620 (DC Cir. 2017). The defendant, a group of health care insurers, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on October 30 of last year. While the Supreme Court is deciding whether to grant the pending Petition, it is worthwhile to briefly review the standing question in the context of protecting your business from liability.
Continue Reading Can’t This Just Be Over? Standing In Cybersecurity Claims